16:07:45 kakobrekla:>If you are proposing that you are actually running a node which keeps all 0-fee txn for a week plus, I very much would like to know what machine are you running, and when's the last time you realised what an incredible DoS mechanism this is.
16:07:50 mircea_popescu:aha!
16:08:17 sturles:I don't keep them all. Only the ones with the highest priority.-
16:08:29 mircea_popescu:so how long is the longest you keep a txn ?
16:08:41 sturles:I don't have a time limit.

People need to understand there is nothing stopping miners or nodes in Bitcoin doing what they want with transactions they receive. The mainline code in Bitcoin has mechanisms to stop valid Bitcoin transactions because they don't have a high enough fee. So the developers believe they can be the arbiters of valid transactions instead of the actual Bitcoin protocol.

It would have been smarter in the first place if the Bitcoin protocol had clear limits on what is valid and what is not. Well actually it does do that. But it should have done that within a context of security too. Which is what the Bitcoin developers are trying to adhoc add over the top of the Bitcoin protocol by saying "Unless a transaction has this fee don't keep it". If you send them too much of these valid transactions they will even ban you from connecting to them anymore. So the main thing they are doing is trying to stop spam transactions which clog the system, both the network AND the blocks. Most people agree with that concept which is why most Bitcoiners don't care so much about it, but there was heavy debate around that at the time from what I remember.

In MicroCash there are no miners and all valid transactions are passed around. However the upside of a decentralized network can also be its weak point, there is nothing to stop someone altering the source and running a node which does not take any transactions, or doesn't take certain transactions. Why would they do that in MicroCash? There is nothing really to gain by doing that, especially if other nodes all aren't running your code. And with transaction pruning built into it there is no reason to care about final disk bloat either. Regardless of everything else - you want as many people to be able to run nodes if they want to. Right now it is incredibly difficult to run a Bitcoin node due to the resources it uses.

The Bitcoin protocol is very inefficient. The code is rather inefficient too, but it is being improved and has been improved by a group of decent devs. The problem is the actual protocol is very inefficient so there is only so much the best devs in the world could do anyhow. Strange thing is I think Eth is even worse on that front but I haven't looked into its technicals yet to find out. But in theory it should be much worse than Bitcoin. MicroCash aims to get rid of all the bloat, straight down to the bare metal, and allow people to build on top of it, to build slow stuff on top of it, without it slowing down the highway.

If you look at a highway do all the turnoffs and turnons affect the main highway? They do a little bit but not much. It is the same concept with MicroCash. If people want to build their rube goldbergs they should be able to, it just shouldn't slow down the rest of us.

Einstein said logic gets you from A to B. Imagination will take you anywhere.